And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Media bias takes on many forms and, given Google's ubiquity, this may be one of the more insidious yet. Google isn't just spoon feeding liberal nonsense to people, it's earth-moving it. The tendency to only check conservative sites mirrors exactly what the MSM does to Republicans in the White House. I was just thinking yesterday that I wonder what an exhaustive search of the 2009-2016 media would turn up in the way of President Obama being fact checked. Anything? President Trump can't say "Hello" without "news" outlets fact checking to see if that was, in fact, an appropriate greeting.

It is no secret that Google is a left-leaning corporate monolith, but it is also a for-profit enterprise. Maybe they're rolling the dice that people are so used to using the search engine that this kind of news won't affect them.

As someone who was a friend of Andrew Breitbart (although we had a sometimes tempestuous relationship) and also of Larry Solov (Breitbart.com CEO), it's hard to see how Larry et al had any choice but to end Steve Bannon's tenure. Further, anyone who thinks Bannon commands any kind of serious loyalty now or constitutes any kind of threat to Trump is being foolish or ginning up an imaginary conflict. That's over. My guess is Steve B. is stewing in his own juices now, filled with regret and trying to figure out how to get back in Trump's good graces. Maybe he has a chance — look at the Trump-Graham relationship now — but I tend to doubt it. Only an idiot disses a man's family — especially to an obvious sleaze bucket like Michael Wolff.

Ivanka Trump failed to acknowledge that one of the men for whom time should be up, theoretically, is her father, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of alleged sexual misconduct and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Some of his accusers spoke out as recently as last month, renewing their allegations in light of the #MeToo movement.

Sheesh. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer. Ivanka is not guilty of sexual harassment. But because of her father's questionable past, this somehow discredits her support? Where's the logic in that?

Some have pointed to this statement of "questionable" advice to women who may be sexually harassed.

Ivanka gave women some questionable advice for dealing with sexual harassment in her 2009 book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Business and in Life: “Learn to figure out when a hoot or a holler is indeed a form of harassment and when it’s merely a good-natured tease that you can give back in kind.”

Sounds like common sense to me. But then, I'm not a woman and don't get harassed. I'm sure some women are very uncomfortable having their sexiness and good looks commented on like that. I'm also sure that others enjoy the attention. Since most of us aren't mind readers and don't know what the reaction to a wolf whistle or catcall might be, good manners demand that we refrain from doing it.

Unless manners, too, are "sexist" in which case why should we care what women think anyway?

It's probably pointless to speculate about whether he was forced out of chose to walk away, but this move does beg some questions:

How will the MAGAs react? Thus far in the Great Trump-Bannon War of 2018, we've seen them back Trump almost to a person. Their loyalty is to the Big Man, not to his consigliere.

Where does Breitbart go from here? Trump is hinting he'll make a DACA amnesty deal with Chuck Schumer and maybe even bring back EARMARKS of all things. Is the new Bannonless Breitbart going to push policies that are important to their readers (such as they are) or will they continue to prop up Trump no matter what he sells out on?

In theory Bannon’s ouster and the purging of loyalists is a chance for Larry Solov and the Mercers to reboot the site. In practice doing that would be highly risky given the traffic they’d stand to lose from alienating readers who expect a certain product, particularly knowing that Bannon will be out there looking to gobble up any consumers who dislike the new direction. The lesson of his defenestration by Trump is that you don’t cross Trump and survive in the populist ecosystem. Whatever Breitbart does now, whether it’s more media-oriented a la Andrew Breitbart’s vision or more political a la Bannon’s, it’ll have to be slavishly pro-Trump as well in order to retain its market edge. I’m sure the Mercers, who spent a lot of money helping make Trump president, wouldn’t want it any other way.